610 F. App'x 859
11th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Andres Gomez, a legally blind Miami resident, attempted to use a nearby Dade County Federal Credit Union ATM in July 2013; the ATM's voice guidance failed and he could not complete a transaction.
- Gomez sued Dade in October 2013 under Title III of the ADA seeking a permanent injunction to require ADA-compliant ATMs across Dade's network.
- Dade produced declarations showing the Subject ATM was retrofitted to 2010 ADA Standards and worked when tested before and after Gomez’s visit; branch employees tested and found the voice guidance functional.
- Gomez alleged (without corroboration) other ATMs in the network had problems and later asserted post-filing tests showing additional malfunctions.
- The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing, concluding Gomez had only alleged an isolated, temporary malfunction and had not shown a real, imminent risk of future injury required for injunctive relief.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding a single, isolated malfunction falls within the regulatory exception for temporary interruptions and does not establish standing to seek an injunction under Title III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gomez has Article III standing to seek an injunction under Title III of the ADA | Gomez alleged a voice-guidance failure that deterred him and testified he intended to return; additional (uncorroborated) malfunctions existed in the network | Dade showed the Subject ATM was retrofitted and operational before and after the incident; the July 2013 malfunction was an isolated, temporary interruption exempted by regulation | No standing. A single, isolated, temporary ATM malfunction does not show a real, imminent likelihood of future discriminatory injury necessary for injunctive relief |
| Whether the court should resolve standing by weighing competing factual declarations (summary judgment standard) | Gomez contended merits and standing overlap, so summary-judgment style fact resolution applies | Dade relied on declarations showing compliance; court may consider evidence to decide standing where facts overlap | Even under a summary-judgment standard, Gomez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact about ongoing noncompliance |
| Whether post-filing ATM malfunctions can cure a lack of standing at filing | Gomez pointed to a second ATM malfunction after the complaint was filed to show ongoing issues | Dade argued standing must exist at the time the complaint is filed; post-filing events cannot create standing retroactively | Post-filing malfunctions do not establish standing that was absent at the time of filing; Gomez could have amended after the dismissal but did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury and redressability)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (injunctive relief requires a real and immediate threat of future injury)
- Houston v. Marod Supermkts., Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.) (Title III standing often shown by intent to return or deterrence)
- Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.) (deterrence and intent-to-return tests for Title III standing)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (standing is assessed at time of filing)
- AFL-CIO v. City of Miami, 637 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir.) (party must adduce evidence to defeat summary judgment on contested facts)